Forcing mostly christian young men to accept something that goes against their religious beliefs.

Anyone that joins the US Army to kill for Jesus is an idiot that missed the point of serving.

The point is to defend a nation/ experiment founded on the principle of individual freedom. You lay your life on the line for someone's right to NOT be a Christian, or to NOT be straight or to NOT be any of a million other things that you personally are in return for your right to be you.

I don't get modern conservatives (disclaimer: I'm neither conservative or liberal). I hear a bunch of lip service about the Government needs to stay the **** outta my life followed by arguments as to why the Government has the right to dictate who can and can not serve, who you can and can not marry and a bunch of other hypocritical *********

P.s. I was in the Army, granted it was over 20 years ago, but we had *** guys serving back then. Everyone knew and no one cared. It's sad really to consider that finally, 200 years later the ideals of individual freedoms are starting to come to fruition and you're upset? wtf???

Homosexuals are now authorized to live together in the barracks, but not heterosexual couples.

Wrong.

Wrong how? I know that Alma responded to the couples side of this, but unless they are giving *** soldiers their own private quarters, then *** soldiers will be barracked with other soldiers of their own ***, while straight soldiers will not be barracked with soldiers of the opposite *** (barring actual married couples, usually in off-base housing of course).

My issue with this has always been the selectiveness of it. If we're doing away with the idea that soldiers should worry about being housed with other soldiers who may find them attractive, why not do away with it entirely? Get rid of ***-based housing as well. Everyone's a soldier. Everyone bunks in the same rooms. Everyone showers in the same facilities. Everyone takes a dump in the same toilets. Isn't the principle being argued here that a soldier shouldn't care if a *** soldier sees their private parts apply equally to opposite sexes as well?

It just seems odd to me to make an argument based on a pretty clear principle, but only apply it in one case while ignoring the far more obvious one. The amount of effort being expended over whether a *** soldier can tell people he's *** just seems silly to me in this context.

Homosexuals are now authorized to live together in the barracks, but not heterosexual couples.

Wrong.

Wrong how? I know that Alma responded to the couples side of this, but unless they are giving *** soldiers their own private quarters, then *** soldiers will be barracked with other soldiers of their own ***, while straight soldiers will not be barracked with soldiers of the opposite *** (barring actual married couples, usually in off-base housing of course).

Wrong in every conceivable way the sentence I quoted could be interpreted. You're thinking open bays, which are a lot less common than people see on TV. They're usually generally used for people training out of their own areas, most commonly by Reservists. They're also split up for maybe fifty to hundred people. By UCMJ, couples in those living conditions are not authorized to live together, heterosexual or homosexual. The simple solution is to separate the two people into different bays. If people lie, and are caught in the lie, they are harshly punished. We take false statements pretty serious, and you can't do anything in the military without signing paperwork saying you aren't lying, all of which are legally binding. So they lie, their uncomfortable bay neighbors complain to the MPs, and these two knuckleheads (regardless of sexual preference) are going to lose rank and a lot of money.

Now, there are hotel like barracks as well; two rooms connected to a common area in the middle. These are the kind of conditions most soldiers actually live in on a day to day basis outside of deployments. By the letter of the law they are separated, and not living together. With that being said, it's all up to the command to follow the rules. If the command decides to turn a blind eye to a homosexual couple sharing the common area type establishment, that's on them. By the same token, a heterosexual couple are given the same treatment. An unmarried couple doesn't have authorization to live together either, but blind eyes for them as well. Plausible dependability: "We just assign the rooms, we don't know what they're doing."

So, yeah. Wrong on authorization of any type.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about recognized couples. I'm talking about everyone else. Right now, quarters are divided by ***. Men and women are not housed in the same bays normally. This is done out of a combination of the sexual activity which may result *and* that most people are uncomfortable being housed in the same bay with someone of the opposite ***.

Those concerns are specific to the assumption of men and women seeing the other *** as potential sexual partners. If they didn't, we wouldn't need to separate them, right? My question is why the same exact concerns are effectively ignored in the case of homosexuals. If the argument for why there should be no concerns about openly *** soldiers living in the same bays with other men is because they should just get over it and not worry about it, then why do we still separate men and women?

The military spends a **** of a lot of money providing separate facilities for men and women. Women are excluded from many (mostly combat) positions specifically because of the impracticality of providing separate facilities. Surely, this is a far far greater cost and problem than the handful of closeted gays serving in the military who might lose their jobs if found out, yet despite the fact that the solution is identical in both cases, we're only applying it to *** soldiers.

Why not just eliminate all *** based distinctions in the military and be done with it? Then it really wouldn't matter if you were ***, straight, male, female, etc. Same rules against fraternization can apply, but will now apply fairly for everyone. Seems more fair and enlightened to me than just cherry picking one case.

Why not just eliminate all *** based distinctions in the military and be done with it? Then it really wouldn't matter if you were ***, straight, male, female, etc. Same rules against fraternization can apply, but will now apply fairly for everyone. Seems more fair and enlightened to me than just cherry picking one case.

Why does everyone think that men and women are separated due to fears of sexual attraction? You recognize that there are other reasons to do this, right?

Why not just eliminate all *** based distinctions in the military and be done with it? Then it really wouldn't matter if you were ***, straight, male, female, etc. Same rules against fraternization can apply, but will now apply fairly for everyone. Seems more fair and enlightened to me than just cherry picking one case.

Why does everyone think that men and women are separated due to fears of sexual attraction? You recognize that there are other reasons to do this, right?

There are? I'd love to hear them cause I can't think of anything else which would justify the need for completely separate housing facilities. But knock yourself out!

Lol! Um... No. What part of this statement (which you quoted no less!) made you think I was talking about recognized "couples" in the military? I went out of my way to say (twice!) that I wasn't talking about couples, yet you somehow completely ignored that and pretended I was anyway.

gbaji wrote:

Wrong how? I know that Alma responded to the couples side of this, but unless they are giving *** soldiers their own private quarters, then *** soldiers will be barracked with other soldiers of their own ***, while straight soldiers will not be barracked with soldiers of the opposite *** (barring actual married couples, usually in off-base housing of course).

I'm speaking specifically of the general population of soldiers and where they live while on base. Those quarters are separated by ***. My question is pretty straightforward. If the argument for allowing openly *** soldiers to barrack with other soldiers of their own *** is based on the assumption that soldiers should just be able to deal with this, why isn't the same argument applied to opposite *** soldiers? Why do we continue to separate men and women?

Regardless of what you think I was asking, this is my question. Do you have an answer? Because to me, the exact same argument for allowing openly *** soldiers to live in the same bays with other soldiers of the same *** should apply to an argument for allowing straight male soldiers to live in the same bays with soldiers who are female. I can't for the life of me see why one would treat those cases differently.

What part of this statement (which you quoted no less!) made you think I was talking about recognized "couples" in the military?

Weird you'd quote a conversation that was about couples if your question had nothing to do with couples then.

gbaji wrote:

Why do we continue to separate men and women?

If this was your question, you should have asked it directly instead of trying to hide it in, what you're now claiming, was a separate conversation. Fuck I'm all for a truly unified service, for what it's worth. We had to spend lots of time outside of the COB in Afghanistan, and we all had to basically live in our trucks for days at a time, regardless of gender and sexual orientation*. I honestly wish it was more awesome than it sounds, but military chicks that aren't Air Force aren't exactly the most aesthetically pleasing. Not a single problem. Why separate? Seems stupid to me, too. Repealing DADT looks like a good way to remove some of that separation. Oh well, one gruelingly slow step at a time.

*I'm operating under the assumption you're not one of those idiots that thinks teh gayz have just suddenly appeared out of thin air, and haven't been in the Armed Forces for longer than both of us have been alive combined.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Why not just eliminate all *** based distinctions in the military and be done with it? Then it really wouldn't matter if you were ***, straight, male, female, etc. Same rules against fraternization can apply, but will now apply fairly for everyone. Seems more fair and enlightened to me than just cherry picking one case.

Why does everyone think that men and women are separated due to fears of sexual attraction? You recognize that there are other reasons to do this, right?

There are? I'd love to hear them cause I can't think of anything else which would justify the need for completely separate housing facilities. But knock yourself out!

So you really want to be hanging out while a woman changes her tampon? You're a bigger freak than I thought.

Why not just eliminate all *** based distinctions in the military and be done with it? Then it really wouldn't matter if you were ***, straight, male, female, etc. Same rules against fraternization can apply, but will now apply fairly for everyone. Seems more fair and enlightened to me than just cherry picking one case.

Why does everyone think that men and women are separated due to fears of sexual attraction? You recognize that there are other reasons to do this, right?

There are? I'd love to hear them cause I can't think of anything else which would justify the need for completely separate housing facilities. But knock yourself out!

So you really want to be hanging out while a woman changes her tampon? You're a bigger freak than I thought.

Any woman who decides to do that type of stuff in public of any audience as opposed to in privacy, i.e. a bathroom, is more of a "freak" than the people in the audience.

Any woman who decides to do that type of stuff in public of any audience as opposed to in privacy, i.e. a bathroom, is more of a "freak" than the people in the audience.

You have "combat" shits & combat ****** the femmes get combat tampon re-supply.

Hu-Rah!

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

As is constantly pointed out, homosexuals are already serving and living with their respective gender so there is no new "selectiveness". In fact, there's no "selectiveness" at all. No matter what your gender, repealing DADT merely means that they don't have to hide their sexuality. You made this same mistake once before when you insisted that, since heterosexual men would have to shower with homosexual men, this meant that heterosexual women had to shower with heterosexual men for it to be "fair", never comprehending that heterosexual women would be showering with homosexual women as the counterpart.

If you were being honest with your claims, what you should be demanding is that women be quartered with men, but have to disguise themselves as men at all times and can't admit or let anyone know that they're women or else they'll be thrown out of the military. Or, if you were honest about wanting one big unsorted military, you should be embracing the repeal of DADT as one step towards your ultimate dream and start handing out petitions to do away with gender-based housing.

Instead, you're making a clumsy (and somewhat disconcerting) mess of equating homosexual men with women in an attempt to argue against allowing gays to openly serve on some notion of "selectiveness". You're typically disingenuous but not always this transparently.

You twit this is precisely why women and men don't bunk together, BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUALITY!

No, because *** doesn't equal sexuality.

Just ask Tailmon.

They're separated by gender, just like at camp. Which is just another place straights & gays have bunked together for years. If you want to watch a documentary on the subject, I'd recommend Wet Hot American Summer.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

The reasons why heterosexual men dont' want to shower with homosexual men ARE THE SAME reasons why heterosexual women don't want to shower with heterosexual men.

This is why officers are as useless as civilians when talking about how soldiers feel about topics. This argument hinges on the assumption that homosexual didn't exist and weren't already showering, or that they're just SO WILY that the rest of us were just too stupid to realize they were there.

But hey. Officer. Not knowing anything about soldiers. Nothing new.

Edited, Sep 28th 2011 11:44am by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Except it is. Man looked at by Man = Woman looked at by Woman. It's still equal, it's just that this doesn't help your argument so you need to try to create new dynamics.

Quote:

It's the concept not the details. If you accept one argument based on feelings x,y and z, then you must also accept the other argument based on feelings x,y and z.

Not at all and that's an exceptionally weak defense. The argument for ending DADT was that homosexuality shouldn't be a barrier for service and the gag order of DADT (and continued threat of discharge) wasn't an acceptable way around that barrier. Now, if you want to make a companion argument for segregating homosexuals or for combining everyone into one giant warehouse of soldiers or whatever, go ahead and make that argument. But the basic question isn't "Oh, no! What if someone looks at me!?", it's "Should homosexuals be barred from military service?"

Quote:

Like I keep saying in every SSM argument, if you argue for all, then you must accept all. Else, you must make an exclusive argument

The reasons why heterosexual men dont' want to shower with homosexual men ARE THE SAME reasons why heterosexual women don't want to shower with heterosexual men.

What does this even have to do with DADT? I mean, I'll respect that people are uncomfortable stuff and all, sure. But really, it not like they weren't there before. Only difference is now there's a chance you may actually know who they are.

I'd imagine chances are pretty good you were getting lusty-eyed behind your back for years.

The reasons why heterosexual men dont' want to shower with homosexual men ARE THE SAME reasons why heterosexual women don't want to shower with heterosexual men.

What does this even have to do with DADT? I mean, I'll respect that people are uncomfortable stuff and all, sure. But really, it not like they weren't there before. Only difference is now there's a chance you may actually know who they are.

I'd imagine chances are pretty good you were getting lusty-eyed behind your back for years.

It's got nothing to do with it. It's certainly a case for further separating facilities; if you wanted to go that route, it's at least a semi-rational argument for it.

But considering that gays have been and are currently showering with the heteros, it's not really a strike against repealing DADT.

1000% wrong. It's "does the military have the right to exclude a subset of society from service".

They do. Few people would argue otherwise which is why we have various standards (age, physical condition, mental condition, past records, etc) for service. However, Congress has decided that they need a compelling argument for doing so which goes beyond "Oh, no! What if some guy looks at my junk!"

Then you should try a pair of glasses or a prescribe to a better prescription.

But you really are an idiot.

I'm sorry that I'm the one to tell you. Don't shoot the messenger, kid.

Dude, I have been there and back with this fool. I have provided step by step proofs of how stupid he is. The message just never gets into his dense little skull. I've come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with him is to simply troll the ever living **** out of him whenever possible. You can do this by making bold assumptions like below.

You heard it here first: Almalique probably beats up *** people for fun.

1000% wrong. It's "does the military have the right to exclude a subset of society from service". Our govn excludes people based on race all the time, it's called affirmative action. Difference being the people the military are excluding act in ways that repulse most of the others trying to serve.

I know! I feel really bad when Asian people aren't admitted to colleges when there aren't enough white people, too.

____________________________

Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.